It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
So even if we theorize that the reason for the curtain shots is Stan's skill and past banking experience, if he says it improves banks, how can I discount that? I mean, it's pretty much straight from the horse's mouth. I don't have the skill at banks to even evaluate the statement, yet here we have a literal champion player saying it's so. I think he's genuine and has the skill to analyze the situation. If he realizes it helps with banks, it most likely does, curtain shot showmanship or not.I can only go on the most plausible explanation given that we have no proof of any kind that the 2x1 surface matters. Here it is: The only documented case of bank shots working better using CTE comes from Stan. We all know Stan is a Kentucky bank pool champion and played nothing but bank pool from the age of 8 to 16. I could go on with his bank pool resume. If boogieman starts draining 3 rail banks using a curtain then you will have my attention.
I know you didn't imply this at all, but I don't think Stan is lying. I think he is being 100% honest, he truly believes it and I for one am in no position to question the methods of someone of his caliber. If you're that good at banks, and you say this thing works, there's a good chance there is something to it. Is it a magic bullet? I doubt it, but there is probably a good enough baseline there that allows you to run with it. I mean, think about it. Most aiming systems use one perception, however that may be arrived at. CTE uses 3, it's your personal perception, but it's literally on rails. You can aim a traditional bow and get damn near perfect with it, but it takes years to master, the bow must be an extension of your arm at this point. You've SAMA (shot a million arrows) The grip area is wearing smooth from use. Then here comes a dude with a compound with sights and nails a deer at 40 yards. He put the perception on rails so to speak. It's even more obvious with a gun sight as you have a rear and a front site. Both must be properly in place and in line of your vision to work. CTE seems like it gives you gun sights for your pool shot if you learn to see the correct reference points. Even with sites on your bow/gun/pool shot, it stands to reason that as you get more experience, you'll be better. Consistency is what the pros specialize in. They don't miss the easy shots. I'm sure they would like 3 references instead of one. 3 references let you average out any mistakes in aim. Just by having 3 references, you've tuned/averaged your deviations from true shot line, so better results should follow.
Three reference points that you force yourself to use (and can fall back on, rely on) will surely give better results. Everyone has made "subconscious" adjustments on a shot. Your brain thinks in pictures, what better way to get everything tuned up than by giving it 3 pictures instead of 1? Surely trusting 3 references isn't something woo woo, or isn't even something that requires as much faith as 1 reference point. Hell, if you think about it CTE only requires 33.3...% of faith that traditional aiming requires.
I want to make it abundantly clear that I've not shot the shots, I'm not yet a practitioner (or thorough tester) of CTE, but there is quite a lot of logic to it, but it does require some parallel thinking, I think this is what is meant by "out of the box." So far though, through what I've read in the book, it is presented in a logical and clear method. You might not understand something initially, but a chapter later it delves into whatever set the bullshit meter off in your head and it answers it quite logically. As long as the stuff in the book translates to a table with a relative amount of practice put in, it's golden.
Honestly the book is well done, it's probably good reference material for even the most die hard anti-CTE folks. It gives you a logical challenge to your current personal aiming system. What's the harm? Even if a person doesn't believe it, wouldn't it have the effect of making your belief in your current aiming system stronger? I think so. As far as "objective" aiming, I don't care. If someone worth their salt at pool says it works, it works, even if it requires a little personal commitment and practice/adjustment time. I'm not implying this isn't true of other systems too, but it all gets back to with 3 references, your chance for mistaken aim is less through the law of averages. If it automagically makes bonus banks, this alone is worth the price of admission. Hell, who wouldn't like to "accidentally" slop in a shot in 9B to keep their run going? Thanks everybody for the good discussion going on in this thread!